1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: D ec em

be r 7, 201 6 4 N O. 34, 321 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 MA NU EL GA LLEGO S-D ELGA DO, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 11 St an Wh it ak er , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Maris V eidem anis, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 14 Santa Fe , N M 15 for Appellee 16 L. He len Bennett, P .C. 17 L
. H el enBe nne tt 18 Albuquerque, N M 19 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 VA NZ I, Jud ge. 3 { 1} De fe n d an tMa n u el Ga l l eg o s -D el g ad o i s an u n d o cu m en t ed i m m i grant who pled 4 gui lt y to dr

ug p oss es sio n and dri vin g w hil e unde r the inf lue nc e of a lc ohol in 5 ex ch a n g e f

o r t h e S t a t e a g r e e i n g n o t t o o p p o s e a c o n d i t i o n a l d i s c h a r g e o f the drug 6 ch ar ge . F ed er al r em ova l pr oc ee din gs w er e the n in iti at ed a ga ins t D ef

en dant, pur suant 7 to the I m

m igr at iona nd N at ion al ity A ct ( IN A ), 8 U
. S. C. §§ 1 101- 1537 ( 2012 ), a nd h e 8 w as pe rm an en tl y deporte d. D ef en dant s ubse que ntl y

f ile d am oti on t o w ith dr awhis 9 gui lty ple a, ar gui ng tha t hi s a tto rn ey ha d on ly

a dvi se d hi m

that a pos sib le 10 consequence of pleading guilt y would be deportation , not that he w ould be barre d re11 en tr y int o the U nit ed St at es f

or ev er . T he dis tr ic t c our

t’ s de nia l of

D ef en dant’ s m oti on 12 to withdraw his plea i s the subject of this app eal. The questio n presented to this Court 13 is whe the r D ef

en dant’ s a tto rn ey

r en de re d de fi ci en t r ep re se nta tio n by f ai lin g to a dvi se 14 him of the spe ci fi c im

m igr atio n co nse que nc es that w oul d f oll owa s ar es ult

of his 15 guilt y pl ea, and

if so, w he the r D ef

en dant w as pr ej udi ce d by he r de fi ci en t 16 pe rf orm an ce . W e an sw er

the se que sti ons in the af

fi rm at ive an d, a cc or din gly , r ev er se 17 an d r em an d.2

1 BACKGRO UND 2 { 2} O n M ay

30, 201 3, D ef

enda nt ple ad ed

gui lty to poss es sio n of

c oc ai ne a nd 3 driving while under the influence of a lcohol in exchange for dis m issal of other 4 ch ar ge s a ga ins t hi m

a nd a pr oba te d sent en ce . Part of the ple a ag re em en t w as that the 5 State w ould n o t o p p o s e a c ondi tional di scharge of the possession charge. Af ter 6 pleading g uilty , D efendant rec eived a condition al discharge o f the possessio n charge, 7 w as pla ce d on supe rv ise d pr oba tio n, an d re ce ive d a de fe rr ed se nte nc e. A t the ple a an d 8 se nt en ci ng h eari ng, dur ing the ple a co llo quy , the dis tr ic t c ourt j udge inquir ed a s to 9 w he the r the re w er e an y im m igr at ionis su es , a nd D ef en dant’ s a tto rn ey

sa id s he 10 “ ex pla ine d [ the ] im

m igr at ionc onsequ en ces fo r [D ef en dant and the ] pos sib ili ty of 11 deportation ” and t hat he had consult ed with an im m igration attorney . The judge then 12 spe ci fi ca lly

a ske d D ef

en dant i f his a tto rn ey

ha d e xpl ai ne d th e im m igra tio n 13 co nse que nc es of

e nte ri ng the gui lty

ple a an d tha t he m ay be de porte d. D ef en dant s ai d 14 tha t she ha d and tha t he n ev er the le ss w an te d to go f

or w ar d w iththe ple a. D ef

en dant 15 ad dit ion al ly

state d th at

he ha d an op portun ity

to dis cu ss the te rm s and c ondi tio ns o f 16 the ple a ag re em en t w ithase parate im m igr at iona tto rn ey . T he j udge e xp laine d to 17 D ef en dant tha t i f he suc ce ssf

ull y c om ple te d th e te rm s of his pro ba tio n, the pos se ssi on 18 charge w ould be discharged and he would no lo nger have it on his record. O f note, 19 a co nd it io na l d is ch arg e op erat es li ke a co nv ic ti on un de r fed eral imm ig rat io n l aw, see3

1 8 U
. S. C. § 11 01( 48) (A ), unl ike in N ewMe xic o, w he re ac ondi tio na l di sc harg e is n ot 2 an adj udication of guilt. NM SA1978 , § 31-20-13(A) (1994). 3 { 3} D ef

en d a n ts ub s e qu e n t l y

v i o l a t e dt h e t e rm s o f

h i s p r o b a t i o n , a n dt h e S ta te 4 m oved to revoke De fendant’ s probation

. The district court appears to have retra cted 5 the c ondi tio na l di sc harg e fo r the pos se ssi on c harg e, a nd an a m en de d j udgm en t and 6 se nte nc e w as e nte re d onN ove m be r 20, 201 3. 7 { 4} Be ca

use D ef en dant v iol at ed

N ewMe xic o law , h e was sub j ec t t o de porta tio n 8 un de r th e INA. See 8 U.S.C. § § 1 18 2( a)(2 )(A), 1 22 6( a)(1 ), 12 27 (a)( 1) (B). On 9 N ove m be r 25, 20 13 , D ef

en dant w as take n in to c ust ody by the D ep ar

tm en t of 10 Hom el an d S ecu rit y

(DHS), an d re m ov al pro ceed in gs were i ni ti at edag ai ns t h im . An 11 Im m igr at ionJud ge ( IJ ) de te rm ine d that D ef en dant w as ine lig ibl e fo r canc el la tio n of 12 re m ova l and a dj ustm en t of status unde r the IN A be ca use of his pos se ssi on c onvi ct ion

. 1 3 Th e I J al s o d en i ed De fe n d an t ’s re qu es tfo r v o l u n t ar y r emo v al b ec au s e D ef en d an t ’s 14 co ntr oll ed

sub stanc e co nvi ct ionpr ohi bit ed D ef en dant f ro m e ve r law fu lly

r et ur nin g 15 to the U nit ed

S ta te s. 16 { 5} D ef

en dant the n f

ile d am oti on f

or r el ie f fr om

j udgm en t an d to w ith dr awhis 17 gui lty ple a. I n th e m oti on, D ef

en dant a lle ge d th at

he w as not

a dvi se d th at

he w oul d 18 be depor ted as a re sult of his guiltyplea and stated that he would not have entered 19 int o th e ple a ag re em en t i f he ha d kn ow n th e spe ci fi c im m igr at ion co nse que nc es of his4

1 ple a. T he dis tr ic t c ourt held a he ari ng on th e m oti on o n O ct obe r 20, 201 4. A t the 2 he ar ing , D ef

en dant te sti fi ed tha t he ha d a lr ea dy be ende porte d and h e w as c ur re ntl y 3 in the custod y

of the U nited States Im

m igrations and Custom s En fo rcem ent (ICE ). 4 D ef en dant f urthe r te sti fi ed

that he w oul d no t ha ve e nte re d th e gui lty ple a ha d he 5 known all the imm igrat i on consequences. O n cross-exam ination , D efendant adm itted 6 tha t hi s a tto rn ey

tol d hi m he “ w oul d” be de porte d, de spi te as se rt ing in ana ff idavit she 7 said he “ m ight” be deported. On re-dire ct, Def endant confirm ed that he knew he w as 8 goi ng t o be de porte d bu t sa id h e did not kno wabout

th e ot he r im

m igr at ion 9 consequences that would result from the plea, s u ch as being forbidd en from ever 10 returning to th e U nited States. During his testim ony , Def endant clarifie d that he never 11 ha d a ct

ua lly hir ed a n im m igr at iona tto rn ey ; he had onl y spo ke n to one br ie fl y

on the 12 phon e, an d she had not dis cu sse d the spe ci fi c co nse que nc es that m igh t e m er ge f ro m 13 pleading g uiltybecause she had not reviewe d his case. 14 { 6} D ef

en dant’ s tr ia l att or

ne y , w ho had sin ce w ith dr awn a s D ef en dant’ s c ouns el , 15 also te s t ified at the hear ing, and she said that the evidence against Defendant w as 16 “ str ong” a nd h e w as “ ad am an t” in ta kin g the ple a. F urthe rm or e, she te sti fi ed that sh e 1 7 s p e c i f i c a l l y t o l d D e f

e n d a n t t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n a l d i s c h a r g e “w o u l d n o t h a v e t h e s a me 18 ef fe ct w ithim m igr at ion ” as it

w oul d w ithoth er

c lie nts . H ow ever, she c oul d no t 19 re m em

be r the e xa ct

langua ge she us ed an d w he the r she tol d D ef en dant “ he w oul d5

1 m ost de fin it el y , to a ce rt ai nty , be de porte d” or w he the r he “ can be de porte d. ” T he 2 following is addi tional relevant testim ony from De fendant’ s trial attorney , C ourtney 3 A ro now sky , a t the he ar ing : 4 [P ro se cu tor :] Ms
. A ro now sky , y ou’ re a w ar e tha t si nc e 2004 , y ou 5 ar e re qui re d to a dvi se y our c lie nts of

the spe ci fi c im m ig ration 6 consequences of each char ge to which t h ey’re pleading ; isn’t that 7 co rr ec t? 8 [M s. A ro now sky :] Y es . 9 [Pr osecutor:] But y ou did not do that in this case? 10 [Ms . Aron ows ky:] Yes, ri gh t. 11
. . . . 12 [M r. S ha ttu ck :] W er e y ou aw ar e tha t he w oul d be de nie d

. . . bon d 13 w hil e he w as goi ng thr oughar em ova l pr oc ee din g? 14 [M s. A ro now sky :] N o. 15 [Mr. Shattuck:] As r esult of this p lea? 16 [Ms . Aron ows ky:] No. 17 [M r. S ha ttu ck :] W er e y ou aw ar e tha t he w oul d be de nie d the r igh t fo r 18 volu ntary

rem oval and to return to th e country as result of this plea? 19 [M s. A ro now sky :] N o. 2 0 [ M r . S h a t tu c k : ] W er e y ou a w ar e tha t he w oul d be de nie d an y 21 attem

pts to adjust his st atus as a re sult of entering thi s plea? 22 [M s. A ro now sky :] N o.6

1 [M r. S ha ttu ck :] A nd w er e y ou aw ar e tha t he w oul d ne ve r be ab le to 2 r e ap p l y fo r

r e e n t ry i n t o t h i s c o u n t ry? 3 [M s. A ro now sky :] N o. 4 [Mr. Shattuck:] And since y ou we re not aw are of those issues, we re 5 yo uab l e t o d i s c u s s t h e m w i t h h i m? 6 [Ms . Aron ows ky:] No. 7 { 7} Ultim ately , the district court denied D efendant’ s m otion , f indin g that 8 De fendant had been advised of the conseq uences of entering the guiltyplea and that 9 the re w as no e vid en ce D ef en dant h ad

w an te d to go to tri al

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso 10 fo und tha t “ [D ] ef

en dant’ s tr ia l c ouns el w as not de fi ci en t in he r re pr es en ta tio n[ , ] ” an d 11 that the “ record f

ails to provi de any

proof that [D ] efendant w as either leaning towar d 12 trial by any pre-conviction statem ents or actions, or that it w as a viable option he w as 13 co nsi de ri ng. ” T his appe al f oll ow ed

. 14 DISC US SION 15 Ju ri sd ic ti on 16 { 8} W e be gi n by a ddr es sin g w he the r thi s C ourt ha s j ur isd ic tio n inthe pr es en t 17 m at te r. W e co nd uc t ou r rev ie w of th e juri sd ic ti on al is su e d e n ov o. State v. G utierrez , 18 2016 -N MCA -077, ¶ 17, 380 P. 3 d 872 . D efendant requested appellate re lief under 19 Ru le 1- 060( B) (4 ) N MR A , w hic h is the pr ope r pr oc ed ur al m ec hanis m fo r a per son no 20 lo ng er i n s ta te cu st od y to ap pe al an al le ge dl y

vo id jud gm en t. See Sta te v . T ran , 200 9-7

1 N MC A -0 10, ¶

16, 145 N
. M. 48 7, 20 0 P
. 3d 5 37. W e ha ve pr ev iou sly he ld tha t this 2 Court has jur isdictio n when a defe ndant wishes to “ challenge his un derly ing crim inal 3 co nvi ct ionw he n inthe c ust ody of IC E ” if the D ef en dant has fi le d a Rule 1- 060( B) (4 ) 4 m ot io n. Sta te v . F

av ela , 20 13 -NMCA- 10 2, ¶ 11 , 31 1 P .3d 12 13 , aff’d , 2015-NMS C5 005, 343 P. 3d 1 78 (

Fave la II ). A lth ough a con dit ion al dis ch ar ge is not ac onvi ct ion 6 un de r New Mex ic o l aw, see § 31 -2 0- 13( A ); Sta te v . H arr is , 201 3- N MC A -0 31, ¶ 6, 7 297 P.3d 374, it has that effe ct u nder federa l im m igration law when an alien has pled 8 gui lty a nd a j udge ha s or de re d so m e ty pe of pun ish m en t, e ve n if

af orm al a dj udi catio n 9 of gu il t h as be en wit hh el d. 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1( 48 )(A). 10 { 9} De fendant wa s in ICE custodyat the tim e he filed this appeal and alleges that 11 the j udgm en t e nte re d a ga ins t hi m is voi d. Be ca

use D ef en dant’ s gu ilt y pl ea to the 12 poss es sio n c harg e ope rate d a s a co nvi ct ionund er f ed er al lawa nd w as thu s th e ba sis 13 fo r the I J f

ind ing that he w as ine lig ibl e fo r canc el la tio n of r em ov al , a dj ustm en t of 14 status , vol unt ar

y r em ova l, a nd tha t D ef

en dant c oul d ne ve r law fu lly r et ur n to the 15 United States, we conclude that this Court has j urisdictio n pursuant to Rule 1-060(B). 16 The M otion to Withd raw the Guilty P lea 17 { 10} D ef

en dant c la im s th at

th e di stri ct

c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing his 18 m oti on t o wi th dr aw his gui lty ple a be ca

use his a tto rn ey

r en de re d de fi ci en t 19 represe ntation by

not advis ing hi m

of the specific imm igration consequences and, as8

1 a re sul t, he w as pr ej udi ce d. A d istri ct c ourt’ s de nia l of

ade fe ndant’ s m oti on t o 2 wit hd raw a g ui lt y

pl ea i s re vi ewedforab us e o f di sc ret io n. Sta te v . T ej ei ro , 201 5- 3 NMCA-0 29 , ¶4, 3 45 P.3d 10 74 , cert. denied , 20 15 -NMCER T-00 5, 3 67 P.3d 44 0. An 4 ab use of

dis cr et ionha

ppe ns “ w he n adis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng i s c le ar ly

e rr one ous or 5 based on a m isund erstanding of the law[. ] ” Id

. (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 6 om itt ed ). T he dis tr ic t cour t a lso abuse s it s di sc re tio n“ w he n th e undi sput ed f ac ts 7 establish that the plea wa s not knowingly and volu ntaril y given.” State v. Paredez , 8 2004 -N MS C- 036, ¶

5, 136 N
. M. 533 , 101 P
. 3d 7 99 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and 9 citation om itted). 10 { 11} U nde r the S ixth A m en dm en t of the U nit ed

S ta te s C onst itu tio n, de fe ndants in 11 cri m in al cas es ha ve th e ri gh t to reas on ab ly effect iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Str ic kland 12 v. W ashi ngt on , 466 U
. S. 668 , 686 -8 8 ( 1984 ). T his ri ght e xte nds to p le a ne got ia tio ns. 13 Patterson v. L eMaster , 200 1- N MS C- 013, ¶ 16, 130 N
. M. 179 , 21 P
. 3d 1 032; se e H ill 14 v . L o c k

hart , 4 74 U. S. 52, 56 ( 1985 ). I n or de r to b e va lid , agui lty ple a m ust be 15 vo lu nt ary an d i nt el li ge nt . Sta te v . G arc ia , 1996 -N MS C- 013, ¶ 9, 121 N
. M. 544 , 915 1 6 P
. 2 d3 0 0
. I f

ad e f e n d a n t p l e a d s g u i l t y b a s e do n t h e a d v i c e o f h i s o r h e r a t t o rn e y, 1 7 wh et h ert h e p l ea wa s v o l u n t ar y an di n t el l i g en td ep en d s o n wh et h ert h e a t t o rn ey’s 18 as si st an ce i n c ou ns el in g t he gu il ty pl ea was in effe ct iv e. Te je iro , 201 5- N MC A -0 29, 19 ¶ 5. Be ca

use am oti on t o w ith dr aw a gu il typle a co nne ct ed to ana lle ga tio n of9

1 ineffec tive assistance of counsel is a m ixed q u estion of law and fa ct, we review 2 Defen da nt ’s cla im

de no vo . See id

. ; see also Gutierrez , 201 6- N MC A -0 77, ¶ 33. 3 { 12} In Str ic kland , t he U nit ed S ta te s S upr em e Co urt a dopt ed atw o- part

te st 4 ap pli ca ble to ine ff

ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el c la im s. U nde r the te st, ade fe ndant 5 se ek ing to m ak e a cl ai m f or ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

co un sel ha s th e bur de n of 6 de m onstratin g: ( 1) “ co unse l’ s pe rf orm an ce w as de fi ci en t[ , ] ” an d ( 2) “ the de fi ci en t 7 pe rf orm an ce pr ej udi ce d the de fe nse . ” 466 U
. S. a t 68 7; State v. H ester , 1999-NMS C8 020, ¶ 9, 127 N
. M. 218 , 979 P
. 2d 7 29. T o pr evai l ona n in ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of 9 counsel claim , both prongs of the Str ic kland te st m ust be m et . T

ej ei ro , 20 15 -NMCA10 029, ¶ 6. 11 1. De ficientPe rform ance 12 { 13} W ithr es pe ct

to gui lty ple as that have de porta ti on an d othe r im m igr at ion 13 co nse que nc es , our Su pr em e Court

he ld i n Paredez

that “ ana tto rn ey ’ s no n- advic e to 14 ana lie n de fe ndant o n th e im m igr at ionc onse quence s of agui lty ple a w oul d .

. . be 15 deficient perfor

m ance. ” 2004-NMSC- 036, ¶ 16. T he Paredez Co urt f urthe r he ld: 16 If

ac lie nt i s anon -c iti ze n, the a tto rn ey m ust a dvi se that c lie nt o f the 17 sp eci

fi c im m igr

ati on c onse que nc es of

ple ad ing gui lty , inc luding whether 1 8 de p o rt a t i o n w o u l d b e v i rtu a l l y c e rt a i n . P r o p e r a d v i c e w i l l a l l ow the 19 de fen da nt to m ak e a k no win g and vo lu nt ary de ci si on to pl ead gu il ty. . . . 20 A n a tto rn ey ’ s fail ur e to p ro vid e the r equir ed a dvi ce r eg ar din g 21 im

m igr at ionc onse qu e n c e s w i l l b e i n e f f e c t ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el if

the 22 de fe ndant s uf

fe rs pr ej udi ce by

the a tto rn ey ’ s om iss ion

.10

1 Id

. ¶ 19 (em

phases added). 2 { 14} Since Paredez , this Court has interpreted the law as “ requir[ing ] cr i m i n al 3 de fe nse c ouns el

. . . to re ad a nd i nte rp re t f

ed er al im m igr at ionlawa nd s pe ci fi ca lly 4 ad vi se th e d efen da nt whet he r a g ui lt y pl ea wi ll res ul t in al m os t cert ai n d ep or ta ti on .” 5 Sta te v . Ca rlo s , 200 6- N MC A -1 41, ¶ 14, 1 40 N. M. 688 , 147 P
. 3d 8 97. I t i s no t 6 sufficient to advise a client that he or she will be deported, bu t rather, the crim inal 7 de fe nse a tto rn ey

m ust inf orm the c lie nt w ithspe ci fi ci ty wh at th e im m igr at ion 8 co ns eq ue nc es m ig ht be

. Se e Te je iro , 2015-NMC A- 029, ¶ 7 (“ An attorney who fa iled 9 to m ee t hi s a ff

irm at ive bur de n inpr ovi din g hi s c lie nt w ithinfo rm at ionabout 10 deportation ris ks would thu s necessarily satisfy the first prong of the Str ic kland 11 an al y si s.”)

. 12 { 15} In the instant case, the r ecord is not illu m inating on t h e q u es t ion of whether 13 D ef en dant’ s tr ia l a tto rn ey

inf orm ed him th at it w as avir tua l c er ta inty he w oul d be 14 de porte d. D ef

en dant a lle ge s th at his attor ne y onl y tol d hi m

he “ co uld ” be de porte d. 15 But during the hearing on the m otion to withdrawhis gui lty plea, De fendant testified 16 both th at

his a tto rn ey

tol d hi m he “ w oul d” be de porte d and tha t he “ poss ibl y ” w oul d 17 be de porte d. T o c om

pli cate m atte rs , D ef

en dant’ s tr ia l a tto rn ey

te sti fi ed that she c oul d 1 8 not re ca ll t h e p r e c i s e l a n g u a g e u s e d , i

. e . , w h e t h e r s h e s a i dh e w o u l dd e f

i n i t e l y be 19 de po rte d o r whe th er he cou ld be de po rte d. Be cau se of t he am bi gu ou s ev id en ce, we11

1 ar e una ble to co nc lud e w he the r D ef en dant’ s att or

ne y pr ope rl y advis ed him it w as a 2 v i rtu a l c e rt a i n t y h e wo u l db e d e p o rt e d

. Ho w e v e r , t h a t i s n o tt h e e n do f

o u r i n qu i ry. 3 { 16} Paredez

not onl y re qui re s de fe nse attor ne y s to advis e the ir cl ie nts if the y w ill 4 be de porte d but also de m an ds tha t att or ne y s “ co nduc t an indi vid ua liz ed a na ly sis of 5 the apparent im

m igrati on c on se qu e nc e s for [a

d] efendant.” Se e Ca rlo s , 20 06 -NMCA6 141, ¶ 15. H er e, the spe ci fi c im m igr at ionc onse que nc es co nfr ont ing D ef en dant, in 7 ad dit ionto the r isk of de porta tio n, ar e subs tanti al

. F or e xa m ple , a s age ne ra l r

ule , the 8 A tto rn ey G en er al “ m ay canc el re m ova l in the ca se of an al ie n who is ina dm iss ibl e or 9 de porta

ble f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s if the a lie n . . . ha s no t be enc on vi ct ed of a ny 10 aggravated felony .” 8 U. S. C. § 122 9b(a)(3). How ever, De fendant’ s controlled 11 su bs ta nc e co n v i ct io n l im it s t he ap pl ic at io n o f th is sec ti on . See U nited Sta tes v. 12 V ale nzue la-E

sc ala nte , 130 F. 3d 94 4, 945-46 (10th Cir. 1 9 9 7 ) (hol ding that 13 poss es sio n of

ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce i s an “ ag gr av at ed f el ony ” as de fi ne d by

18 1 4 U.S .C . § 9 2 4 (c )( 2 ) a n d8 U
. S
. C . § 1 1 0 1 (4 3 )( B) ). Si m i l ar l y, th e A t t o rn ey Ge n er al ’s 15 ab ili ty to ad

j ust D ef en dant’ s r es ide nc y

status und er

8 U
. S. C. § 12 55a (b )( 1) (C )( ii) is 16 ne ga te d b y

a fel on y co nv ic ti on . Se e id

. (“ T he A tto rn ey G en er al sha ll ad j ust the status 17 of a ny a lie n pr ovi de d law fu l t em por ar y r es ide nt s ta tus und er subse ct ion( a) of thi s 18 se ct io n t o t ha t o f an ali en lawf ul ly adm it te d fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e if th e al ie n . . .12

1 establish[es] that he .

. . has not been conv icted of a n y felony

. . . in the United 2 St at es .”). 3 { 17} Furthe rm or e, D ef en dant w oul d ge ne ra lly be al low ed to voluntari ly de part the 4 U nit ed S ta te s at his ow n ex pe nse rathe r than be ing subj ec t to re m ova l pr oc ee din gs. 5 8 U.S. C. § 12 29c (a )( 1)

. H ow ev er , D ef en dant’ s c ontro lle d su

bst an ce c onvi ct ion 6 ren de rs hi m “ de po rta bl e” un de r Sect io n 1 22 9c (a)( 1) , th us li m it in g t hi s o pt io n. Se e id. 7 (l im iti ng the opt ion to sel f- de port to a lie ns “ not de porta ble und er [ 8 U
. S. C. S ] ec tio n 8 1227 (a)( 4)(B) ”). 9 { 18} Mos t si gni fi cantl y , D ef en dant’ s c on tr oll ed

sub stanc e co nvi ct ionr es ult s ina 10 pe rm an en t bar to r ee ntr y to the U nit ed

S ta te s. 8 U
. S. C. § 1182 (a ) pr ovi de s, in 11 pe rt ine nt p ar

t, that “ al ie ns who are ina dm iss ibl e . . . a re ine lig ibl e to r ec ei ve vis as a nd 12 ineligib le to be adm itted to th e U nited States. 8 U. S. C. § 118 2(a)( 2)(A )(i)( II) provides 13 th at an al ie n “ co nv ic te d of

. . . a vi ol at io n o f . . . any law o r reg ul at io n o f a St at e . . 14 . r elating to a controlle d s u bstance . .

. is inadm issib le.” See B errum-G arcia v. 15 Co m for t , 390 F. 3d 11 58, 1165 (10t h Cir. 2004 ) (stating that “ aliens [that] are deem ed 16 ‘ ina dm iss ibl e’ [ are] ine lig ibl e ev ento ap ply f or avis a tha t w oul d pe rm it the m to 17 le ga lly

e nte r the U nit ed

S ta te s” ); P eo

ple v . A m . Sur

. I

ns. Co

. , 92 C al

. Rp tr . 2d 2 16, 18 219 (C al

. Ct
. App. 200 0) ( ap ply ing 8 U
. S. C. § 1182 (a )( 2) an d not ing tha t “ re vie wof 19 present feder al im

m igration law indicates that the statutory bars to legal reentry are13

1 nearly , i f n o t flatly , im pregnable for a c onvi cted drug traff icker”) . A s discuss ed 2 above, th e con ditio nal discharge of Defendant’ s drug poss ession charge op erate s as 3 a co nv ic ti on un de r fed eral law. See 8 U
. S. C. § 11 01( 48) (A )( i) ( “ T he te rm ‘ c o n vic tio n’ 4 mea n s , wi t h r e s p e c tt o a n a l i e n , af o rmal ju d g men to f

g u i l to f t h e a l i e n e n t e r e db y a 5 co urt or , if

a dj udi catio n of

gui lt ha s be enw ith he ld, w he re . . . the a lie n ha s e nte re d a 6 ple a of gui lty or nol o c ont en de re or

ha s a dm itt ed

suf fi ci en t fa ct s to w ar

rant a f ind ing 7 of gui lt[

. ] ”)

. D ef

en dant’ s a tto rn ey

a cknow le dge d th at

she did not advis e D ef

en dant 8 of the se a ddi tio na l i m

m igr at ionc onse que nc es . I nde ed , D ef en dant t es tif

ie d th at a t the 9 tim e of his guiltyplea he w as n ot awar e that deportation would b e perm anent or that 1 0 h e w o u l ds u ff

ero t h ers ev er e i m

m i g ra t i o n co n s eq u en ce s . Th er ef o re , De fe n d an t ’s 11 gu il ty ple a was no t vo lu nt ary an d i nt el li ge nt as r equi redby the Six th Am en dm en t. See 12 G a r c ia , 1 99 6-N MS C- 013, ¶ 9; se e als o Fave la II

, 201 5- N MS C- 005, ¶

14 ( “ It is 13 im pe rativ e tha t e ve ry de fe ndant ent er ing int o aple a ag re em en t w hic h c oul d r es ult in 14 im m igr at ionc onse que nc es pos se sse s ac le ar unders ta ndi ng o f tho se im m igr at ion 15 consequences.”). 16 { 19} Ina ddi tio n, in its or de r de ny ing D ef en dant’ s m oti on, the dis tric t c ourt f ound 17 tha t “ [D ] ef

en dant t es tif

ie d th at hi s tr ia l a tto rn ey a dvi se d hi m

of the spe ci fi c 1 8 consequence of deportation.” As pre viou sly discussed, ho we v er , De fe n d an t ’s at t o rn ey 19 w as r equir ed to adv ise him , not onl y of the co nse que nc e of de porta tio n, but al so o f14

1 ot he r imm ig r a t io n ra m ifi cat io ns . See Ca rlo s , 2006-NMC A- 141, ¶ 15 (“ W e re ad 2 Paredez

to require at a mi ni mum tha t the a tto rn ey a dvi se the de fe ndant o f the spe ci fi c 3 federa l statutes which apply to the spe ci fi c charges contained in the proposed p lea 4 agreem ent and of consequences, as shown in the statutes, that will flowfrom a plea 5 of gui lty

. ”)

. Bu t D ef

en dant’ s a tto rn ey

te sti fi ed that sh e w as not

a w ar e of the f ull 6 br ea dthof

imm igr at ionc onse que nc es D ef en dant f ac ed

. A s su ch , she w as una ble to 7 give Def

endant advice regarding the relevant fe deral s t at u tes and such no n-advice 8 co ns ti tu te d d efi ci e n t p erfo rm an ce. See P aredez , 200 4- N MS C- 036, ¶ 16; se e als o 9 Ca rlo s , 2 00 6- N M C A

- 14 1, ¶ 1 6 ( e xp l a i ni ng thatar e si de nt a l i e n’ s de f

e ns e a t t or ney 10 “ shou ld h av e an al y ze d and d isc uss ed w ith[ the d] ef en dant the f

ed er al statut e re la tin g 11 to canc el la tio n of re m ova l” an d othe r im m igr at ionc onse que nc es be y ond the iss ue of 12 de porta tio n)

. D ef

en dant h as thu s m et the fi rs t pr ong of the ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of 13 co unse l t es t. 14 2. Pr ejud ice 15 { 20} The second prong of the Str ic kland test requires D efendant to dem onstrate that 16 his “ co unse l’ s c onst itu tio na lly ineff ec tiv e pe rf

orm an ce a ff

ec te d th e out co m e of

the 17 plea process.” Paredez , 200 4- N MS C- 036, ¶ 20 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n 18 om itt ed ). I n or de r to e sta bli sh s uc h pr ej udi ce , the de fe ndant m ust show tha t the re is 1 9 a “re as o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y” h e w o u l dn o th av e t ak en t h e p l ea h ad t h e a t t o rn ey’s15

1 re pr es en ta tio n r eg ar din g th e spe ci fi c im m igr at ionc ons e q

u e n c e s b e e nc o n s t i t

u t i o n a l ly 2 ad eq ua te . Id

. (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks an d ci ta tio n om itt ed ). “ Our rece nt 3 j ur is p r u d e n c e a d o p t s ‘ ab r o a dap p r o a c h t o h o wad e f e n d a n tc a n d e m o n s t ra te 4 prej udice.’ ” T

e j e i ro , 2 015- N MC A -0 29, ¶ 14 ( quot ing F

av ela , 201 3- N MC A -1 02, 5 ¶ 20). Th e app roach used by this Court is no t m echanical, but rather, is determ ined 6 by the fact s o f eac h c as e. F av ela , 20 13 -NMCA- 10 2, ¶ 1 9. 7 { 21} To sh ow th a tad e f e nd a nt w ou l d have r e

j e c t e d ap l e ad e a l h a d hi s a t t or ney 8 ad vi se d h i m

of t he sp eci fic imm ig rat io n c on se qu en ces be y on d d ep or ta ti on , a 9 defendant m

ust show that his decision to dec line the plea bargain “ would have been 10 rational under the circum stances.” Te je iro , 201 5
- N M C A

- 0 2 9 , ¶ 1 4 ( i n t e r n a l q u ota tio n 11 m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). G en er al ly , how ev er , pr ej udi ce m ay not be sho w n by the 12 defendant’ s self-ser

ving statem ents alone and requires som e corr oborating evidence. 13 Id

. ¶ 15. Co rr obor at ing e vid en ce m ay inc lud e: ( 1) the de fend an t’ s pr e- co nvi ct ion 14 st at em en ts or a ct io ns th atin di cat e th e d efen da nt pre f e r r e d t o g o t o t ria l, P att er son , 15 20 01 -NMSC -0 13 , ¶ 30 ; (2) th e st ren gt h of the Sta te ’s cas e, id

. ¶ 31; ( 3) e vid en ce of 16 a d efen da nt ’s con ne ct io ns to th e Uni te d S ta te s, se e Ca rlo s , 200 6- N MC A -1 41, ¶ 21; 17 an d ( 4) the de fe ndant’ s po st -con vic tio n be ha vio r tha t de m onstrate s he pr oba bly 18 wou ld no t h av e p le d g ui lt y ha d h e rec ei ve d c om

pe te nt ad vi ce, se e Te

je iro , 201 5- 19 NMCA-0 29 , ¶¶ 15 , 2 8- 30 . Howev er, t he se fact or s ar e n ot ex cl us iv e. Id

. ¶ 15 ( “ O ur16

1 co urts h av e pla ce d no li m it on the ty pe s of r el ev an t e vid en ce ade fe ndant m ay pr ovi de 2 to de m on st rat e th athe wou ld ha ve reject edth e p le a if gi ve n app ro pr ia te ad vi ce.”)

. 3 { 22} In deny ing Defe ndant’s m otion to wit h drawhis gui lty plea, the district court 4 found th at there w as no pre-conviction evid ence that dem onstrated Def endant wanted 5 to p ro ce ed

to tr ia l. T o th e co ntr ar

y , how ev er , D ef

en dant’ s pr e-co nv ic tio n e ff orts t o 6 en ga ge a n im

m igr at iona tto rn ey

de m onstrate d D ef

en dant’ s in te nt t o a voi d 7 i mm i g r a t i o n c o n s e qu e n c e s . M o r e o v e r , up o n t h e a d v i c e o f t h e i mm i g r a t i o n a t t o rn e y, 8 D ef en dant g ot m ar

ri ed spe ci fi ca lly

in ana tte m

pt t o a voi d de porta tio n. H ad D ef en dant 9 be enpr ope rl y advis ed , the re fo re , the re is a “ re as ona ble pr oba bil ity ” he w oul d have 10 reject edth e p le a d eal , see P aredez , 2004 -N MS C- 036, ¶ 20 (i nte rn al quot at ionm ar ks 11 and citation om itted), a s evidenced by his p re -c o n v iction actions that show he wa s 12 co nc er

ne d a bout the im m ig rat ionc onse que nc es of his c as e an d a ct ive ly

too k st ep s 13 ai m ed at red uc in g t he co ns eq ue nc es . Se e Te je iro , 2015-NMC A- 029, ¶ 27 (stating that 14 a de fe ndant’ s pr e- co nvi ct ione ff orts to m ake the dis tr ic t c ourt aw ar e of his 15 im m igr at ionsit

ua tio n stro ngl y

sup porte d th e pr opos iti on th at the de fe ndant w oul d 16 ha ve r ej ec te d th e ple a de al if his co unse l’ s re pr es en ta tio n ha d be enc onst itu tio na lly 17 ad eq ua te ). 18 { 23} A lth ough the str en gth of the St at e’ s ca se ap pe ar s to have be en “ str on g,” the 19 district court did n o t co nsider the harshness of the cons equences De fendant wa s17

1 co nf ro nt edwit h a s a r es ul t o f hi s g ui lt y pl ea, see P aredez , 200 4- N MS C- 036, ¶ 22, 2 w hic h li ke ly

w oul d have inf

orm ed D ef en dant’ s de ci sio n to pr oc ee d to tr ia l ha d he 3 known the full scope of im m i gr at i on r am i f i c ations. The district court placed particular 4 em phasis o n the fact that D efendant had consult ed an im m igration attorney who had 5 advis ed

him not to ple ad gui lty a nd h e nev er

the le ss d ec ide d to take the ple a de al , 6 pr es um ab ly

be ca use of the str en gthof

the S ta te ’ s ca se ag ai nst him

. D ef

en dant, 7 how ev er , te sti fi ed

that he ha d not ac tua lly hir ed the im m igr at ion attor

ne y an d th at

she 8 did not kno wthe spe ci fi c ci rc um stanc es of hi s ca se . Mo re im

portantl y , D ef

en dant 9 very we ll m ay have m ade a stra tegic decision to go against th e non-indiv idualized 10 advice of

the im m igr at iona tto rn ey

in or de r to avoi d be ing sub j ec te d to both 11 in carc erat io n a nd de po rta ti on . Se e id. (“ It is con ce iva ble tha t a no n- ci tiz enm igh t op t 12 to plead gui lty and accept deportation to avoid serving a prison sent ence, rather than 1 3 fa ce t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f b o t h i n ca rc er at i o n an dd ep o rt at i o n .” ). Bu th ad De fe n d an t ’s 14 attorney

properly advised him of t he severe and sp ecific im m igration cons equences 15 be y ond de porta tio n, it “ w oul d have be enr at ion al und er the c ir cu m stanc es ” fo r 16 De fendant to rej ect the plea dea l so that he could have an oppo rtunity to be acquitted 17 and, there fore, an opport u n ity to avoid th e harsh im

m igration cons equences that 18 a wait edhi m . Se e Te

je iro , 2 0 1 5
- N M C A

- 0 2 9 , ¶ 1 4 ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n m a rk s a nd 19 ci ta ti on om it te d)

.18

1 { 24} W ithr es pe ct

to the ev ide nc e of D ef

en dant’ s co nne ct ion s to the U nit ed S ta te s, 2 D ef en dant h as aw if

e an d y oung c hil d he re . T he re co rd al so ind ic at es that D ef en dant 3 alleges that he cam e to the United State s in 199 8 as a child an d has lived here 4 continu ous l y since then. D efendant’ s connection s to the United States and the fac t 5 tha t he ha s li ve d he re his e nti re a dul t l if e co uld ha ve beende ci din g f

ac tor s inhis 6 de ci sio n to ple ad

gui lty giv enhe w as unaw ar e of t he m or e se ve re im m igr at ion 7 co ns eq ue nc es he face d. See Ca rlo s , 200 6- N MCA-1 41, ¶ 21. S uc h e vid en ce of 8 at ta ch m en t t o t hi s co un try m ay fu rth er corro bo rat e Defen da nt ’s cla im s. Se e Te je iro , 9 2015 -N MC A -0 29, ¶ 24 ( ex pla ini ng tha t w he re ade fe ndant h ad li ve d w ithhis f

am ily 10 in the United States for over a d ec ade, such conn ection to thi s country provided 11 corroborating ev idence that the defendant would not hav e acc epted a plea deal had 12 he known the imm igration cons equences). 13 { 25} Fi na lly , w e not e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c onsider D ef en dant’ s po st14 convicti o n b ehavior, w hich sug gests that Defe ndant would n ot have taken the plea 15 deal had he fully

known the imm igration cons equences he fac ed. O ur j urisprudence 16 re co gni ze s th at

ade fe ndant’ s po st- co nvi ct ionbe ha vio r m ay be r el ev an t i n th e 17 pr ejud ic e an al y si s. Id

. ¶ 28. “ In Paredez , our S uprem e Court held that the speed of a 18 de fe ndant’ s po st- co nvi ct ionr ea ct ionupo n di sc ove ri ng the a dve rse im m igr at ion 19 co nse que nc es of

his gui lty ple a co uld be co nsi de re d w he n w ei ghi ng the r ea sona ble19

1 pr ob ab il it y

th athe wou ld h a v e act eddi ffer en tl y wit h c om

pe te nt ad vi ce.” T

ej ei ro , 2 2015 -N MC A -0 29, ¶ 28 . He re , D ef en dant’ s a

ppe al to the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ion 3 Appeals w as rem anded on Ma y 2 7 , 2 014. Tw o day s later D efendant signed an 4 af fi da vit statin g, “ [H] ad

[ I] kno w [n ] that I w oul d sure ly f ac e im m igr at ion 5 co ns eq ue nc es an d b e st rip pe d o f an y rig ht s t o c on te st de po rta ti on [or ] rem ov al , I 6 wou ld no t h av e en te redin to th e [p le a] agre em en t an d wou ld no t h av e [p le d] gu il ty.” 7 L es s th anam onth late r, on June 24, 201 4, D ef en dant f ile d hi s m oti on f

or re lie f fr om 8 j udge m en t and t o w ith dr aw his gui lty ple a w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt. D ef en dant’ s po st9 co nv ic ti on act io ns , alt ho ug h n ot co nc lu si ve , see id. ¶ 29, stronglyindicate that 10 D ef en dant w oul d ha ve re

j ec te d the ple a de al if

his a tto rn ey

ha d no t pr ovi de d de fi ci en t 1 1 re p r e s e n t a t i o n . I n d e e d , D e f e n d a n t ’ s c o n t i n u e de f

f o rtt o f i g h tt h e i m

m i gr at ion 12 consequences, includin g this v ery appeal, further suppor t s t h e conclusio n that 13 Defen da nt was p reju di ced

. 14 { 26} Insum , w e hol d th at D ef en dant’ s a tto rn ey

r en de re d de fi ci en t pe rf

orm an ce by 15 not inf orm ing D ef

en dant o f the spe ci fi c im m igr at ionc onse que nc es , be y ond 16 de porta tio n, that w oul d ari se f ro m his gui lty

ple a. W e fu rth er h old that the 17 co nst itu tio na lly

ina de qua te r ep resent at ionpr ej udi ce d D ef en dant b ec au se he w oul d 18 not ha ve ta ke n the ple a de al ha d he known the fu ll sc ope of seve re i mm igr at ion 1 9 c o n s e qu e n c e s h e f

a c e da s ar e s u l to f

p l e a d i n g g u i l t y.20

1 CON CLU SION 2 { 27} Fo r t h e f

o re g o i n g re as o n s , we re v er s e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s d en i al o f D ef en d an t ’s 3 m oti on t o set as ide his gui lty ple a and re m an d for f urthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w ith 4 thi s op ini on. 5 { 28} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 7 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, Ju dg e 8 WE CO NCUR:
9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 10 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e
11

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 12 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e